Osama Saeed's blog

02 August 2010

Ofcom last week dismissed the claim that Scottish Television's output had been influenced by the Scottish Government through sponsorship of programmes.

The money came from the Homecoming budget, which promoted Scotland amongst the diaspora worldwide in 2009.

What got me about this was how the SNP was supposed to have benefited. Government money cannot be used for party political purposes and no one could point in this instance to how the SNP gained. Advertising of this nature has been half as much under the SNP as it was under Labour. What we were told was that Scottishness was being promoted, and jings, crivvens, by jove, gosh, the Bill was knocked off the schedule and Scottish programmes were on instead.

“The Government has a multi-million-pound advertising budget. It must be used for the public good not party political advantage.

“We also need to know whether the SNP Government had a role in removing popular programmes, like The Bill, from our screens.”

Labour and the Lib Dems also joined in. They seem to think that just because a programme is Scottish, it’s an SNP thing.
Yet they will all claim to be Scottish parties, and bristle at any slight comment
which may question their patriotism.

By their works ye shall know them.

One final thought - this complaint to Ofcom came in the lead up to the general election, a campaign which was defined by the leaders debates between the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour. So at the same time as those three were being boosted by basically free advertising on the BBC, ITV and Sky, Ofcom were deliberating this frivolous complaint about the SNP.

24 June 2010

Gerry Hassan’s written a piece about the 'Anyone But England' phenomenon for this World Cup.

Personally, I’ve been giving good free advice to see that our nearest neighbours make the most of their potential at this tournament.

The fact is that neighbouring countries around the world have banter, and hope against the triumph of those sharing their border. It happens with Spain and Portugal, Brazil and Argentina, Peru and Chile, Turkey and Greece, Holland and Germany, Poland and Germany, Switzerland and Germany, Germany and indeed just about all their neighbours.

It’s not just football. Canadians like to beat the US in whatever it is that they play in North America. In cricket, there is no more hot a rivalry than Pakistan and India. Pakistan also like to do well against England and see them beaten. So do Australia. It’s a colonial thing - England have a wider sphere of rivalry than Germany.

Sometimes geopolitics and historic wars are involved, sometimes they are not. Some are banter, some are pathological (in Scotland it is by far the former, and it shouldn’t be more). Some countries do support their neighbours more than others, but there isn’t any correlation between that and their success or otherwise as nations outwith the sport.

Rinus Michels said after Holland lifted the European Championship trophy with Van Basten et al in 1988 that their real win was against Germany in the semis:

"We won the tournament, but we all know that the semi-final was the real final".

I can’t imagine that if Scotland won an international tournament (go with me on this), their main win would be considered beating England along the way (give imagination a well-earned rest now). Neither would we find the unusual language of Portugal manager Luis Filipe Scolari before their 'do-or-die' match against Spain in Euro 2004:

“This is war, and I have to kill and not be killed.”

Maybe the main reason we don’t hear of “Anyone but [Spain/Germany/Argentina]” tshirts elsewhere in the world, is because their main rivals actually made it to the World Cup and have something positive to support.

And for those that still think that the Scottish psyche is unhealthy, consider the following point by Hassan:

“Many Scottish football fans have a clear sense of why all of this is happening and list a litany of supposed sins to justify the above. They include the English going on about 1966, supposed English arrogance, the assumption in the English media that England might win the World Cup, the constant confusion of ‘England’ and ‘Britain’, and even, the passionate and partisan nature of English commentators getting behind their team (as if Scottish commentators don’t do the same).”

True, media and commentators around the world are partisan for their respective countries. English commentary is no different in this. What is different, and gives the ABE phenomenon more of an edge than would otherwise be the case, is that people in other nations do not have to sit and consume the news coverage and sports punditry of their nearest and dearest rivals. If they did, and had to pay for the privilege, it would get their backs up.

21 June 2010

This year’s general election showed up a serious ideological difference between the SNP and the other major parties. We were the only ones who went into it opposing the agenda of swingeing cuts in public spending.

Sure, it was hidden behind the grammatically controversial “More Nats, less cuts” slogan. But there was so much more to it than a policy of Scottish exceptionalism. This was apparent in any of the hustings I took part in, which surprised even me at how much to the left we were of Labour, Lib Dem and Tory orthodoxy.

True, there is a significant budget deficit and this should be brought down. For this, it should be recognised what brought it about. It was not a surge in public spending, it was a reduction in the tax take the recession entailed. Economic growth therefore should be the driver to reducing the deficit.

Labour's plan for dealing with the deficit though was proportionally 50% spending cuts, 25% tax increases, and just 25% resting on growth. The Tories since taking office have said their plan rests 80% on spending cuts and 20% on tax rises (no mention of growth from them at all). Both proportions are plucked out of thin air, and both show great lack of confidence in their ability to grow the economy.

With the private sector having stagnated, the major economies rightly employed fiscal stimulus to replace it. The state has a vital role to play, and balancing its books is not the same as tightening the household finances – a childish analogy senior politicians routinely make.

This crisis is the biggest since the crash of 1929, which turned into the Great Depression precisely because of the instinct to cut at the sight of increasing deficits. As we know, it was policies like FDR’s New Deal in the US which hiked spending on essential national infrastructure projects but which boosted the economy, created jobs, helped businesses, and got the tax take up. Cutting may reduce spending on one hand, but also reduces tax revenues and increases spending through higher unemployment payments.

There is plenty that we need built in this country. There is a green energy revolution to unleash.The creaking public transport infrastructure we have that needs an overhaul, is one other obvious example.

Deficit hawks will say that the markets will not put up with this. That is the same credit rating agencies which gave gold star ratings to the rotten produce that created this crisis in the first place. What they will certainly not like is the double-dip recession that current thinking will produce. If they are looking for a credible plan to reduce the deficit, then politicians should put one forward.They should be setting the tone for the markets, not the other way round. All they ever talk about though in the context of deficit reduction is cuts, and never give anywhere near as intricate plans for maximising growth.

This is Labour’s problem in posing now as opposing Tory cuts. They were set to do exactly the same, save for this particular financial year. Alistair Darling said as chancellor that their cuts would be “deeper and tougher” than Thatcher’s. They accepted the market-driven narrative that supposedly necessitated savage cuts, when they needed to show strength and drive a different path.

They could even after it was all done have kept the Tories out with a progressive coalition, but weren’t interested. We now seem to be headed for years of gloom, depression and unrest. The SNP’s election campaign this year will appear more and more important as time goes on.

I’m astounded at the coverage in this country of the BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Too much exception has been taken to President Obama’s use of “British Petroleum”, and very scant realisation has set in on the scale of the environmental catastrophe that has taken place and is taking place. There has also been concern for the financial portfolios of British pensioners. If there are people, especially old folk, who have put all their eggs in the basket of high risk, volatile, single company oil stocks, I would hope they went into such an arrangement with their eyes wide open or with appropriate amounts. Concern for current pensioners is though cover for funds which should level off eventually. If there are some funds that are overexposed, they should explain their strategy.

It’s another symptom of how the financial bottom line and profit is being put above health and wellbeing of people and planet. There are tens of thousands of barrels of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico every day. No one here seems to be speculating on what this means, and how the well will be stopped. What if it can't be blocked? What if it keeps flowing for months, years or even decades till the oil runs out?

Oil is said to be drifting into the Atlantic Ocean and entering the Gulf Stream. That hits Europe including the west coast of Scotland. BP oil could be reaching us in time to come, having a major impact which may not just be in terms of pollution. Could the oil also fundamentally alter the nature of the ocean current itself, having an effect on our climate given the warmer temperatures it brings?

No one seems to be asking the questions or giving assurances. We cannot trust BP to tell us what the scenarios are. There have been deceitful PR operations on this from day one, when BP went down to the source after the explosion and said there was no leak. They then didn’t release HD footage of the oil gushing out for over a month, meaning that the true extent of the oil coming out was not known till very recently.

I hope someone, somewhere is looking into this while our government instead worry about BP’s share price. Since the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the UK government has approved deepwater drilling off the coast of Shetland. The drilling there is not in as deep water as the drilling at the Macondo Prospect (5,000 ft vs 1,430 ft to the sea floor and 18,000ft vs 7,654ft below the sea floor).

Depth may not be an issue at all, and there may have been peculiarities in the Gulf of Mexico. The point is that at this stage we don’t know the causes, and it may be prudent to take the action the Norwegians and the US have in suspending all deepwater drilling. Chris Huhne, energy minister, has said that the regulation of oil drilling in the North Sea is handled better than in the US, but this supposes that he somehow knows what the cause of the tragedy was there before an investigation has even concluded.

It’s all very well to blame BP, but the US government allowed them to drill. The UK is doing likewise. And just as with the banks, there is all the appearance of government not knowing what the heck they’re allowing big business to get up to.

20 June 2010

I'm sidestepping the usual questions of whether I'm supporting England this world cup or ABE,
by offering these sincere thoughts.

Fabio Capello needs to drop Emile Heskey, not just because he doesn't score ay goals. He is not a positive creative presence either. It's sometimes said that the other players enjoy playing with him, but Wayne Rooney stated in a BBC interview with Alan Shearer before the tournament started that he prefers to play by himself up front. That is after all what he does well for Manchester United.

Steven Gerrard similarly is a massive presence at club level - playing behind the front man, not out on the left wing.

There seems to be two ways to play football at the top level. On one hand, when Barcelona won the Champions League in 2009, we hoped it would usher in an era of slick passing and possession.

The top teams now pack their midfields, with one player (and sometimes no players) up front. Rooney is the obvious striker, so why the obsession of successive England mangers with Emile Heskey? It seems that England managers do not trust their teams to hold the ball, and therefore need an 'outlet' in the form of a big musclebound centreforward. Capello seems to favour this more than dropping Heskey and employing one of his better ball-playing midfielders in the shape of Joe Cole.

But this year Barcelona lost their crown and Jose Maurinho showed with Internazionale that you don't need to have the ball
to win. A very well-drilled and structured team, willing to pressure and harangue can triumph.

In either case, one striker is played, and the midfields packed. None of the teams considered in contention for winning the World Cup is playing with two up front, not even the Brazilians. England are probably more suited to the Inter than the Barca way, but right now they are utilising an antiquated structure on the field which achieves neither.

It's said amongst some that McAvennieMcAveety has been hard done by, and it's only the SNP that criticised him. McAveety is often happy to be rent-a-quote on a variety of matters so can hardly complain too vociferously.

The comments were made in private, and though may be common amongst men (and indeed women) about the opposite sex, you don't find people saying this sort of thing in very public contexts. The shooting from the gob, and the free airing of very base instincts, led rightly to his resignation as convener of the public petitions committee.

Even so, this is largely a private matter between him and his wife. One remaining matter of interest to us should be what was meant by the sinister sounding "putting out a wee word"? Would parliamentary staff be sent to arrange liaisons for the MSP? Maybe Mr McAveety can explain.

26 May 2010

Last week a British court ruled that two terrorism suspects could not be deported to their homeland of Pakistan because of the likelihood of them being tortured there.

The suspects in question were arrested in Operation Pathway last year, which was described as stopping a “very big terrorist plot” by then prime minister Gordon Brown. No evidence was found to be able to prosecute any of the eleven people arrested though.

This has led to legal limbo where the state still sees these men as a threat. Pressure is being put on the new Tory and Lib Dem government to continue Labour’s control order regime, effectively placing the two remaining suspects who have not been successfully deported to Pakistan under permanent house arrest, even though they opposed it in opposition.

Ming Campbell QC MP was on Question Time praising the “integrity of the process” which had led to the conclusion whereby the men could not be deported. “Integrity” was a strange word to use about a process coming after the normal legal avenues of evidence, charges and trial have been exhausted. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission is a secret court hearing secret evidence which the accused does not have access to.

Labour’s justificication of the control order regime is that it is a necessary measure for people who cannot be prosecuted. I feel very uncomfortable hearing words like this. Placing people under house arrest because the state does not have evidence to put someone on trial and get a conviction doesn't sound fair. Ironically, this "evidence" may include material gained from torture in
places like Pakistan.

Furthermore, given the wideranging anti-terrorism offences that have been brought in over the last few years, the government have to explain how after you have trawled through the home, workplace, computers, emails, phone records and reading materials of an “Al-Qaeda operative”, that there’s nothing you can prosecute over.

There has been very little comment on the Islamic Republic of Pakistan torturing its own people. In the same week the state banned Facebook because of people organising a “Draw Muhammad Day” on it. A better way or honouring the Prophet would surely be to uphold basic human dignity. Disappointingly, there doesn't seem appetite amongst the Pakistani diaspora to take this issue up.

20 May 2010

People are now separating their rubbish more and more at home, so it’s strange to visit places where you lump everything together and stick it all into one bin.

McDonald’s rationale is that it’s difficult to recycle things when they have food residue on them. This doesn’t entirely stack up since other companies manage it, and there is plenty of rubbish that doesn’t have food on it. It would appear there is a reluctance to allocate the resource that would be needed to process it.

This is the situation with McDonald’s UK, but their counterparts in Germany and Sweden do manage to separate their rubbish, with the former saying they achieve a 90% recycling rate. In the UK they’ve instead been trialling a scheme in Sheffield since 2007 where waste from 11 restaurants is incinerated and turned into energy.

McDonald’s said in 2008 that they wanted to send zero waste to landfill by now, so I’ve written to them to see how they’re getting on with that.

13 May 2010

There are many reasons to be fearful of the Tory Dem government, but one advantage they have is that they will have to plumb uncharted depths to come over more authoritarian than the previous Labour one.

It has to be welcomed that they’ve agreed to end the detention of children.

And already they’ve abolished Labour's ID database. It’s gone, just like that. A very good saving of anything between £6-18bn. That said, they are not presenting this as part of their package of cuts.

It is the cuts to jobs and services that will make this coalition unpopular. The Lib Dems have said they'll be "savage". Bank of England governer Mervyn King has said that whoever won this election would be so unpopular that they would then be out of power for a generation.

Labour stayed out away from office to perhaps try and benefit from this. The problem for them is that they are part of the banking consensus that precipitated this crisis in the first place, and went into the election promising cuts “deeper and tougher” than Margaret Thatcher’s. It would take a level of chutzpah not reached even yet by the Labour Party to present themselves now as opposition to this agenda.

I suspect that they won’t do this, and for the same reasons that brought about the New Labour project in the first place. To win Downing Street they had to win over the rightwing press in England. Remember that Middle England, nay the whole of England, just voted for a Tory majority. The political culture there is different from Scotland and is unlikely to change in the years to come. The Milibands or whoever it is will have to continue playing to that audience.

Their Labour colleagues in Scotland may try and present themselves as economically to the left of them. It’ll be interesting to see if the media in Scotland continue to let them get away with the “it’s Labour or the Tories” line as if it is true.

11 May 2010

This is despite Labour having run an election campaign in Scotland about protecting us from the Tories. Time after time we were told that it was Gordon Brown or David Cameron, a Labour government or a Tory government. We must vote Labour we were told, because we musn't let the Tories in by the back door.

Today Labour opened the front door to 10 Downing Street and held it open for a Tory prime minister to walk through.

The SNP offered to support Labour and the Lib Dems in forming a government. Apart from the headline of this blog post, there seem to be two objections to this from Labour. Firstly, that they couldn't be bothered, that they were tired, and the Tories had won. The self-styled Tory-slayers lacked energy and bite.

The second seems to be a steadfast refusal to countenance proportional representation in electoral reform. My party labelled the support we'd have provided to Labour as a "progressive alliance", but yet again it seems there is very little in Labour's political or economic worldview that can be so marketed.

As for the Lib Dems, in 2007 they refused to consider a coalition with the SNP at Holyrood. But they are now sharing a Downing Street duvet with the Tories. They and Labour will pay a heavy price for their facilitation of a Tory government. "Labour or Tory - it's your choice" Labour said on their election leaflets. In the end, it was actually Labour's choice.

07 May 2010

I want to thank my campaign team. I love you all dearly. I’ve really enjoyed it. The Glasgow Central SNP campaign was at all times eventful, colourful and full of laughs.

We had a really young team. There was barely a grey hair between us, which people find surprising given how good and prominent the campaign was. I’ve no sadness, we gave it our all. People on the outside are full of praise for the energy with which we ran it, the doors that were knocked, the leaflets that were delivered, the posters that were festooned everywhere, and the ideas and initiatives with which we ran. I’m proud of you all and will be eternally grateful for your belief, commitment and companionship.

Thank you also to all who voted for me. The support was humbling. Particular gratitude to the many who made nice comments, and who had been silently following my work over the years. It was strange being a bit of a local celebrity on the streets, but it was immensely enjoyable meeting so many new people.

Congratulations to Anas Sarwar on winning.

I knew when the campaign proper started a month ago that it wasn’t going to happen for us. The national media coverage squeezed us out. It was the same for the SNP across Glasgow. The Tory poll lead put the frighteners on people which played to the false Labour mantra about it being about them or the Conservatives.

We increased our share of the vote in Glasgow Central, while nationally it was the SNP's best Westminster result since the 1970s.

I’ll have more to say soon no doubt. I’m now though going to use the politician’s cliché of having a bit of long overdue time with the family. I’ve spent near enough 10% of my life as the SNP’s candidate for Glasgow Central in this incredibly long election campaign. I’ll be dusting myself down and rejoining the ranks of party activists in the next day or two.

So last week Mohammad Sarwar retired as an MP. You may have missed this since he neglected to make the customary valedictory speech in the House of Commons. This is the one where retiring MPs reflect on their time as an MP, say some words of farewell and thank their constituents.

It's unusual he didn't make one. It may just be indicative of his poor 57% attendance rate in Parliament that he didn't get round to it. He was busy doing whatever it is he was doing.

Maybe he's hoping that some voters don't take notice there is a different Sarwar on their ballot paper this time around, as he doesn't look too dissimilar in the leaflets.

Or perhaps it's something to do with the attitude expressed in this video that has emerged.

The people of Glasgow Central deserve better than this. It won't be difficult being more active than him, but I intend to be positively hyperactive in comparison.

This is interesting. The day after I took a picture of the patch of road below on St Andrew's Drive, some men from the council arrived and according to a nice lady who lives next to it 'stuck some grit in there and rolled over it' before heading off after a minute.

The slapdash papering over the cracks could serve as a metaphor for Labour governance. It is definitely better than it was a few days ago though - for now.

It may or may not be linked to my photo taking - the road was a state for ages - but feel free to email me any of your own pictures of choice potholes for featuring on the website - blog[AT]osamasaeed.org.

Putting up a poster is a great way you can help the campaign. Whether it's for home or work, please drop me a line at blog[AT]osamasaeed.org with your address and quantity and we'll get them over to you.

09 April 2010

08 April 2010

I was surprised to find that my blog had been listed by the UK government as the 8th most influential “pro-Islamic blog”. The Telegraph pointed out that this research was compiled in 2008 and my blog is now mainstream and concentrates on wind farms, high speed rail and Trident.

I think this says it all really about where I am. At the turn of the decade a few months ago I had cause to reflect on the last ten years. I’m coming to the end of my twenties, a period I have spent more in the public eye than most my age.

I attended one of the British Council’s Our Shared Europe debates in Brussels last November. On the journey there and back I managed to read Mohsin Hamid’s The Reluctant Fundamentalist. It tells the story of a Pakistani lawyer in New York, seemingly secular and irreligious, but who after 9/11 and the Afghanistan war finds conflict within himself which eventually leads him back to Pakistan where he organises anti-US protests.

It gave me cause to reflect what would have become of my life if 9/11 hadn’t happened. I did my first media interviews back then in 2001, providing Muslim condemnation for Al-Qaeda atrocities. At each terrorist outrage since – Madrid, 7/7, Glasgow Airport – I was wheeled into studios to do the same, and building bridges of understanding between Muslims and others became vital and ongoing work.

I cut my campaigning teeth in the lead up to the Iraq war. This wasn’t of course a “Muslim issue” and united people from all walks of life. When faith enters the public sphere, arguments and issues should be dealt with on their merits rather than with some form of faith exceptionalism or favouritism. If the invasion of Iraq was wrong, it wasn’t because it was a Muslim country. If there needs to be an end to the occupation of Palestine, it isn’t because there are Muslims there, it’s because it is the right thing to do. If faiths want more family friendly policies, how does this benefit society?

When it comes to Islam and Muslims most people occupy the centreground and here’s what people, both Muslim and not, agree on. Muslims are like any other faith group. They have a right to practice their faith, and to propagate it if they wish. Others have a right to disagree with Muslims about their faith, in the same way that Christians and all other faiths receive criticism. In the same way as other faiths, Muslims can organise. This is not an Islamist threat to the country, any more that the churches pose an existential threat of something called ‘Christianism’.

Despite this, you’ll get the neocon right still gnashing their teeth about it. Having been a disinterested observer for a while though, watching the same old people get het up about it, you quickly see this is an obsession of a strange bunch.

At that debate on “Europe and Islam: Whose Identity Crisis?” in Brussels, Douglas Murray from the rightwing Centre for Social Cohesion was on the panel. It was fascinating watching him get so animated while others on the panel with whom he disagreed with were speaking. I listened attentively to the discussion, and even agreed with much of Murray’s utterances. But even the bits I disagreed with, I was struggling to get worked up about it. I just found I wasn’t bothered, in a way perhaps a few years ago I would have been.

The truth is that it isn’t just Muslims whose lives were affected by 9/11 and the ensuing ‘war on terror’. There has been an entire industry of self-styled experts and pundits whose lives and notorieties depend on it. If I thought Murray was lively, this video of obsessive neocon Harry’s Place blogger David Toube is just astounding. Myself, I’m not interested in being about these issues and most sane people aren't either.

There are big things happening in the world today. We’re still on the precipice of major economic collapse. Jobs and services have to be protected. Financial architecture has to be restructured. Climate catastrophe has to be averted. Poverty and home and abroad has to be eliminated. These are the issues that drive me.

As the years go on, Muslims will get more involved in the mainstream of society, not because they are Muslims, but in a process of normalisation. I am not standing for election as a Muslim MP, just simply as an MP. I may happen to be Muslim, but we do not speak of Christian MPs and Jewish MPs. Similarly, while identities such as ‘Scottish Muslim’ and ‘British Muslim’ are seen as positive, other faith groups do not mix their nationality in this way. When talking about nationality, they are Scottish, while in the context of faith, they are Christian, Jewish or whatever else.

I am Scottish. My faith is a private devotional matter. That doesn’t stop me practising it though. There is an ease with faith issues in this country that perhaps doesn’t exist in large parts of the European continent. This is despite the wailing of some on the right in this country for many years. Long may sanity prevail.

Going back to Mohsin Hamid’s book, I was involved and interested in mainstream politics before 9/11 and would have been active if it hadn’t happened. I have gone through much during these 'war on terror' years, but they don't define me.

The campaign starting pistol has finally been fired, and we are off and running with huge issues at stake and clear dividing lines as I've noted in this press release.

Much is also made in Glasgow Central about the dynastic spectacle of Mohammad Sarwar trying to pass the seat down to his son. I don't often defend them, but this isn’t the issue. Sarwar Jr may well just have happened to be the best person Glasgow Labour had to offer.

What is at stake though is whether Labour best is good enough and what kind of MP he would be. On this, there are problems. It’s not clear what Anas Sarwar has done in life or politics. Gordon Brown isn’t helping him by his repeated “No time for a novice refrain” and I’d imagine there is consternation in the Sarwar household every time Brown plays the toff card and engages in class warfare. There are huge questions on how the millionnaire heir can relate to ordinary people and families, especially during these tough times.

Sarwar Sr himself has an atrocious campaigning record and has no tangible legacy to show for 13 years in office. Before even being elected I’ve had to be holding surgeries for people let down by their MP. He was the UK’s most costly in terms of expenses, but only attended Parliament 57% of the time. It’s not clear what he was doing instead.

I've heard the Sarwars being compared to the royal family. They turn up to some events, say a few pleasantries and shake a few hands. They don’t talk about issues, they certainly don’t do anything about them.

Jim Murphy says Labour represents the Facebook generation. However, their Glasgow Central candidate in his mid-20s hasn’t updated his website since 2007 (he has now taken his news page down and replaced it with “news archive to be updated”).

This is despite Sarwar Jr last summer giving up his job to campaign fulltime. That panic move came after the SNP finishing just 136 votes behind Labour in Glasgow Central awoke them from their slumber. I was incharge of that campaign here. We go into this one promising to work hard for the people, and not be part of the London banking consensus which would wreak havoc in Glasgow’s communities. For that, we will have to be charging 100% inheritance tax on the Sarwars.